[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Nov 6 2008, 07:12 PM, said:

 

Quote

The media reports what people want to see. If the media favored someone, it's a reflection of what brought them ratings.

I agree. I think that's perfectly reasonable with respect to entertainment media, and problematic with respect to news media.

Quote

Not that a Republican would ever say the media didn't treat the other side much better...

I have a hard time imagining a Democrat, a Republican, OR an independent with any intellectual honesty disputing that Obama was disproportionately(*) the media favorite in this election.



(*) = as compared with the popular vote ratio.

[awm]

Part of the problem was that Palin was kept away from the press for so long.

When she finally did an interview, she came off as an idiot. Hopefully she's not really that dumb, but if you watched the Katie Couric interview especially her answers are really terrible.

I'm surprised they didn't let her talk a lot more, especially to the right-wing portions of the media. Eventually she did start doing interviews with Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. but this was after she had made such a fool of herself in the highly anticipated Gibson and Couric interviews.

I think that Palin also has some pretty serious ethical issues. She doesn't seem to understand what it is and is not proper to charge to her work. The law is pretty clear that you can't spend campaign money buying clothes for the candidate. Similarly you can't pay yourself per diem for days spent at home, and you can't charge your office to fly your kids with you to events where they're not invited. I don't think calling her on this is particularly biased.

Biden doesn't have these sorts of ethical issues. He does manufacture a lot of verbal gaffes (as do all the candidates for that matter -- McCain didn't seem to know that Spain was in Europe, Obama seemed confused about when WWI ended, Palin thought Africa was a country -- although Biden is particularly bad). But all serious news sources accept that occasional random gaffes happen when you're giving as many speeches as these people give, they get called on them but usually it's not a big deal.

[awm]

Media bias is also an interesting phenomenon. Certainly there are reporters and news shows that have an agenda. But there are plenty of right-wing news sources (Fox, most of talk radio, Wall Street Journal, etc) too.

However it is worth noting that the candidate who is leading in the polls almost inevitably gets better coverage than the candidate who is losing. Kerry did not exactly get favorable press coverage in '04 (the "swift boat" attacks ate up a lot of news cycles). Obama wasn't getting particularly favorable press coverage during some portions of the primary (Reverend Wright ate up a lot of news cycles, whereas McCain seeking endorsements from some crazy evangelists did not get nearly the coverage). The Palin VP pick ate up a lot of news cycles; Biden could hardly get his face on TV at all even though he had just been selected as VP. It may also be worth mentioning that Palin's minister (the famous witch-hunter, at least as crazy as Rev. Wright) got basically no press. And Palin's husband's membership in the Alaska Independence Party also got basically no press (whereas Michelle Obama saying something that could be interpreted as mildly un-American ate up a huge number of news cycles in the primary).

But once McCain started losing badly (i.e. right after the mess on Wall Street came out) and McCain's campaign started going overwhelmingly negative, I admit that from that point on Obama got far more favorable coverage. But I don't think this is so much "press loves Obama" as "press hates the way-behind candidate who resorts to mostly-unfair negative attacks."

[cherdano]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 06:43 PM, said:

Quote

Not that a Republican would ever say the media didn't treat the other side much better...

I have a hard time imagining a Democrat, a Republican, OR an independent with any intellectual honesty disputing that Obama was disproportionately(*) the media favorite in this election.

(*) = as compared with the popular vote ratio.

I am not sure what this statement is supposed to mean. Yes, news reporters probably vote Democratic by a big majority. Editorial page editors less so, but this year they also did so in their endorsements.
However, this doesn't matter unless the coverage is unfair. However, is Palin is incompetent and Biden is competent than reporting about Palin's incompetence and not reporting about Biden's incompetence is not unfair.

[Lobowolf]

cherdano, on Nov 6 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

However, is Palin is incompetent and Biden is competent than reporting about Palin's incompetence and not reporting about Biden's incompetence is not unfair.

I disagree that Biden's being a "known quantity" should be a determination made by the news media, and thus subject him to less scrutiny; I think the media's job is to scrutinize the candidates fairly equally, and let the readers/viewers determine the extent to which they want to allow for Biden's resume.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 08:19 PM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 6 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

However, is Palin is incompetent and Biden is competent than reporting about Palin's incompetence and not reporting about Biden's incompetence is not unfair.

I disagree that Biden's being a "known quantity" should be a determination made by the news media, and thus subject him to less scrutiny; I think the media's job is to scrutinize the candidates fairly equally, and let the readers/viewers determine the extent to which they want to allow for Biden's resume.

You are missing the point, so much so that you replied to a totally different argument than the one you quoted. I'll clarify as best I can.

Palin is an idiot. Biden is not an idiot. Therefore Palin has a LOT more idiocy available to scrutinize than does Biden. Therefore Palin was scrutinized a LOT more than Biden. The media was not unfair to behave in this way. In fact they would have been quite irresponsible to behave in any other way.

This is like the basketball coach that complains his team got called for 30 more fouls than the other, and thus the referees are unfair. Uh, not if your team committed 30 more fouls than the other team!

BTW for a different yet very complete explanation, read awm's last post.

[jonottawa]

If you want to complain about the media ...

They've all been in the tank for Obama/Biden. It's been cult-like and disgraceful.

They also were all in the tank for Bush's fascist vision of America about 5 years ago. Far more disgraceful.

America's 'mainstream' press is a travesty. Watch it for entertainment or to amuse yourself, but if you're actually trying to gain some understanding of how your government works or what the issues of importance are, you're wasting your time. Watch BBC or PBS if you actually want to be enlightened or to learn something.

[Lobowolf]

I think the best thing to do is to read/watch biased information on both sides; I do, though, think it's a problem when people who aren't shrewd about politics or the media take information from one source and assume it's neutral...whether that one source is left- or right- leaning.

[cherdano]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 07:19 PM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 6 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

However, is Palin is incompetent and Biden is competent than reporting about Palin's incompetence and not reporting about Biden's incompetence is not unfair.

I disagree that Biden's being a "known quantity" should be a determination made by the news media, and thus subject him to less scrutiny; I think the media's job is to scrutinize the candidates fairly equally, and let the readers/viewers determine the extent to which they want to allow for Biden's resume.

Let me try to explain it once more: Palin having no idea that "Bush doctrine" refers to foreign policy is big news. Palin misspeaking the name of the commander in Afghanistan is news but not big news. Biden mixing up radio vs TV in Eisenhower's national addresses is news but not big news.
Media reports big about big news, and reports about news.

This has nothing to do with bias.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Nov 7 2008, 04:19 AM, said:

cherdano, on Nov 6 2008, 07:59 PM, said:

However, is Palin is incompetent and Biden is competent than reporting about Palin's incompetence and not reporting about Biden's incompetence is not unfair.

I disagree that Biden's being a "known quantity" should be a determination made by the news media, and thus subject him to less scrutiny; I think the media's job is to scrutinize the candidates fairly equally, and let the readers/viewers determine the extent to which they want to allow for Biden's resume.

I think that you're confusing apples and oranges:

1. Random ***** happens. If / when there is an event of interest the media should cover it.

2. One would hope that the news media would perform independent investigations. Palin was thrust onto the public stage. McCain chose her to be one fairly weak heartbeat away from the Presidency. It's entirely appropriate for the media to invest significant time and effort performing a background investigation.

McCain, Obama, and Biden went through much the same process. The only difference is that the amount of time that was available to perfom the vetting. The media had decades to explore McCain and Biden. Years to delve into Obama's background. In Palin's case, it had to be compressed into a matter of weeks.

[hrothgar]

Lobowolf, on Nov 7 2008, 03:38 AM, said:

hrothgar, on Nov 6 2008, 07:33 PM, said:

So, how do you explain Fox, the Wall Street Journal, Drudge, and the rest of the echo chamber?

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

Completely irrelevant comparison:

Even if I were willing to accept your claim the mainstream media was biased towards Obama, the relevent size of Fox versus the rest of the media is still extraneous.

Fox had more than sufficient time, energy, motive, and resources to dig up dirt on Biden. They failed to do so... To me, this is pretty clear evidence that they were unable to find anything substantive.

(alternatively, maybe they were distracted by all the air time they were giving Andy Martin)

[han]

The idea that it is the job of media to give an equal amount of negative information about either candidate, no matter who they are and what they do, is hilarious.

[luke warm]

cherdano, on Nov 6 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

~ with the daughter of billionaires who had become famous be the accidental release of a private sex tape.~

damn, where have i been? what sex tape?

[slothy]

2 points :

First Point

About Obama's lack of political experience: from the general consensus of journalistic opinion, (the 'heavies' in the broadsheets) at least in UK, it seems quite divided as to whether this situation will affect his presidency, at least in terms of public credibility.

People wanted a fresh change and they got it - without of course, considering the wider and historical implications of the election outcome - 'touching the arc of history' etc hee hee.

What was encouraging was the turn-out on poll day. 97% of African-Americans in Georgia i heard: which is amazing! To encourage people to exercise their franchise is something that both parties are hell-bent on doing here in UK.


As i recall, JFK had no political shadow. No one criticised him, at least in terms of his municipal and governmental naivete. Although he oozed more charisma than an overripe fig, he did exactly what OBamBam is doing. He surrounding himself ( omitting his brother of course which was outright nepotism ) with well-chiselled, political stalwarts along with young aspiring politiicians to balance the histogram, which pacified any people who thought he was mavericking.


He has a lot to prove. Unfortunately, unlike JFK, he is inheriting an economy stampeded with stock-market crashes and a general climate of manic-depression. I watched his victory speech: what stood out more than anything was that it was delivered behind bullet-proof glass.

Is he going to spend his time mollycoddled by a flotilla of gorilla-looking security officers with wires coming out of their ears? Are the fears of assassination ( very realistic imo there are a lot of disillusioned, wretched people in this world who are quite willing to sacrifice a life that symbolises an ethic that contradicts the ones that they bigotedly and religiously (sic) uphold and resent being challenged on) going to be the one thing that distances him and eventually alienates him from the people he so desperately wants to serve?

I was happy when he got elected, irrespective of any political persuasions i quite unashamedly shy away from having. It symbolises change and good change, whatever the outcome. It doesn't wipe out the past but it certainly sets new horizons: too many people get neck-strain looking over their shoulders to see what had happened in the past.

I am waiting for our next elections. Maybe if one of the parties put forward a South Asian, non-English-speaking, wheel-chair-bound transsexual and s/he got elected a lot of cawing birds will be killed with one stone

May I live in hope

SECOND POINT

I was mildly amused and disturbed by Palin's comment about Africa being a country It seems to have been referenced many times as well as other comments which seems to underpin her ability to embarrass herself.

Are we going to see a flurry of Palinisms** following in the wake of Bushisms, especially as McCain publicly announced Palin as the 'new face' of Republican America. Well don't see that lasting very long post election


At least people living in the village of Europe think that Palin wont last long

** cant we call them Palindromes ? JAJAJAJAJAJA

[akhare]

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

Thanks for confirming that vegans like me do exist. It appears that "Palindrones"
-- people who will continue to put forth vacuous arguments about her qualifications vis-a-vis Biden exist too.

[Lobowolf]

akhare, on Nov 7 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

Thanks for confirming that vegans like me do exist. It appears that "Palindrones"
-- people who will continue to put forth vacuous arguments about her qualifications vis-a-vis Biden exist too.

You're welcome; I'm a vegan also, and I exist.

I must have missed people putting forth vacuous arguments about Palin's qualifications vis-a-vis Biden's, but they probably exist, too.

[luke warm]

akhare, on Nov 7 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

Thanks for confirming that vegans like me do exist. It appears that "Palindrones"
-- people who will continue to put forth vacuous arguments about her qualifications vis-a-vis Biden exist too.

i haven't seen any vacuous arguments about her qualifications re: biden... can you point some out to me?

[akhare]

luke warm, on Nov 7 2008, 06:28 PM, said:

akhare, on Nov 7 2008, 03:09 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 6 2008, 07:38 PM, said:

The same way I explain vegans, black conservatives, and vegetables that taste good -- They exist, and they're by and large strongly outnumbered by their counterparts.

Thanks for confirming that vegans like me do exist. It appears that "Palindrones"
-- people who will continue to put forth vacuous arguments about her qualifications vis-a-vis Biden exist too.

i haven't seen any vacuous arguments about her qualifications re: biden... can you point some out to me?

I wasn't referring to the arguments put forth on this forum. Just try searching for "Palin vs. Biden experience" or better still "Palin vs. Obama" and you will get an idea of what I am talking about.

If you think that's the work of loony fringe elements, try listening to "Mr. noun-verb-9/11"'s annunciations on the topic...